 |
The Raynham Planning Board meeting of March 13, 2003 was called to order at 6:30 p.m., at Town Hall, with Henry Ellis, Burke Fountain, Carl Carlson, John Canto and Daniel Andrade present.~ Also present were Town Planner Richard McCarthy, Administrative Assistant Maureen McKenney and John Schmid of Judith Nitsch Engineering, Inc. (JNEI).
6:35 p.m. General business - invoices signed: Copy-to-Copy, JNEI, invoices from Highway Department for snowplowing at King Philip Estates I and II.~ Board of Appeals Petition No. 680, variance request, was discussed.~ After discussion, a motion was made and seconded to send a letter to the Appeals Board in opposition to the variance request on the grounds discussed; motion passed by unanimous vote.~ Board members then discussed a proposed Certificate of Action (COA) for Endorsement of 81 Plans-ANR, authorizing the Board’s clerk as the only signature needed on Form A plan.~ After discussion, the language on the COA was amended. The COA was signed, and it will be recorded at the Registry of Deeds.~
Correspondence dated March 13, 2003 was received from Town Counsel Marc Antine regarding an associate Planning Board member.~ After discussion, Board members agreed that an associate member should sit on the Board for special permit hearings only. It was agreed that the position should be jointly appointed by the Planning Board and the Selectmen for a one-year term with a vacancy to be filled jointly by both boards.
7:00 p.m.~ Public hearing for Elm Street East/George subdivision plan was reconvened. Correspondence on the plan was received from JNEI, dated March 10, 2003, and from Highway Superintendent Roger Stolte, dated~February 27, 2003.~ Acceptance of the plan was received from the Fire Chief, dated 3/10/03. Mr. Ellis informed those present that correspondence had been received from Town Counsel relative to another one-lot subdivision plan before the Board, which indicated that the Board cannot approve one-lot subdivision plans because, according to case law, there is no such concept as a one-lot subdivision.
During discussion, Mr. Andrade stated that he felt this plan is not a one-lot subdivision because there was one owner of the larger parcel from which the locus lot was created, unlike the Mello/North Main Street matter referred to in Town Counsel's letter.~ Mr. Fountain agreed that this situation was different than the Mello matter.~ Mr. Canto stated that he felt there should be two or more lots on a subdivision plan but not all the lots had to be buildable lots. Attorney Edmund Brennan, Taunton, MA, addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant and stated that this situation was procedurally different from the Mello matter because the applicant had created the locus lot by Form A, at the Board's request, before submitting the subdivision plan.~ Mr. Ellis noted that the Board did not want to prejudice either this plan or the Mello
plan.~
John Schmid told the Board that a second lot could be created on the plan in order to satisfy subdivision requirements.~ Board members agreed that a second lot must remain unbuildable.~ It was noted that a restrictive covenant had already been prepared for the locus that prohibited any additional building.
Peter Oldridge, 86 Elm Street East, spoke to make certain that the 10-feet buffer as previously discussed was still included on the plan.~ He noted he is concerned that the location of the proposed house will adversely affect his property value.~ Fred Landolfi, Raynham, MA, owner of the locus property, addressed the Board and stated that he has been paying taxes on the property for many years and has tried on several previous occasions to develop the property but has been denied.~ After discussion, the public hearing was continued to April 10, 2003, 7:45 p.m.
7:45 p.m. - Discussion of proposed zoning amendments.~ Correspondence dated March 12, 2003, and March 19, 2003, regarding proposed zoning amendments was received from Town Administrator Randall Bucker. Copy of correspondence dated March 7, 2003, from Town Counsel Marc Antine to Mr. McCarthy was received. After discussion, a public hearing for proposed zoning amendments was scheduled for April 10, 2003, starting at approximately 8:30 p.m.
7:52 p.m. - Public hearing for 876 Broadway/Berlin site plan reconvened.~ Correspondence dated March 13, 2003 was received from JNEI. Todd Pilling, P.E., Kenneth Berlin, M.D., and property owner Rebecca Mello were present.~ Mr. Pilling noted that there were only a few outstanding issues remaining.~ Waiver requests were discussed.~ Site landscaping, dumpster removal and bollards were discussed.~ Dr. Berlin noted that he would not need more than the 30 parking spaces being provided.~ After further discussion, Board members agreed to hold a special meeting on Thursday, March 20, 2003, at Gilmore Hall.~ The public hearing was then continued to March 20, 2003, 6:30 p.m.
8:13 p.m. - Public hearing for Mello/North Main Street Waiver of Frontage Plan was reconvened.~ Mr. Ellis submitted a written apology to Chris Gallagher, P.E., for his conduct at the last public hearing.~ He read it into the record.~ Mr. Gallagher accepted the apology and also apologized for his behavior at the public hearing.~ Mr. Gallagher then stated that he had seen Town Counsel's opinion on this matter, noting that the opinion said that the Board should not approve this plan because a one-lot plan is by definition not a subdivision plan pursuant to Subdivision Control Law.~ Mr. Gallagher stated that he always believed an ANR plan should have been submitted instead of a subdivision plan.~ He then read a letter requesting withdrawal of the application.~ He requested that the fee be returned to the applicant and that there be no further
discussion or action taken by the Board.~ He stated that he felt the applicant could obtain a building permit at this point. James Mello was present, and at Mr. Ellis' request, he signed the withdrawal request.~
Attorney Brennan spoke and stated that he agreed with Town Counsel's opinion but disagreed with Mr. Gallagher that the plan required no further Board action.~ Dan Caldwell, 225 North Main Street, spoke and noted that his attorney was not present with him because he was advised that the matter was now a "dead issue."~ Mr. Caldwell expressed concern with the possibility that a house could now be built on the property.
After discussion, Mr. Fountain read Mr. Gallagher's letter, dated March 13, 2003.~ A motion was made to allow the application to be withdrawn.~ A motion was made to return the $720 submittal fee.~ A motion was made to not refund any part of the submittal fee; motion seconded.~ Mr. Fountain noted that the Board had spent a considerable amount of time on this matter.~ Applicant James Mello spoke and noted that he took exception to Mr. Fountain's tone towards the applicants when speaking.~~ William Nickerson, Hill Street, Raynham, addressed the Board and stated that he agreed with Mr. Mello and asked why Mr. Fountain felt the applicant was "underhanded" in the matter.~ Mr. Fountain stated that if the applicant intentionally ignored the legalities of the matter then he had a problem with that but if the applicant was innocent in the
matter, then he apologized.~ Mr. Gallagher noted that he informed applicant's attorney not to handle the matter as he did and Mr. Ellis stated he believed Mr. Mello had received bad advice on this matter.~
Mr. Nickerson suggested a compromise regarding the fee.~ A motion was made to amend the motion not to return the $720 but to return $120 to the applicant; motion seconded.~ Motion passed by four votes with~Mr. Andrade abstaining.~ A motion was made to accept the withdrawal of the Form C application; motion seconded.~ Motion passed with four votes in favor and Mr. Andrade abstained.
8:45 p.m. Public hearing for Payne Farm/Finch Farm II reconvened.~ Dan Aguiar, P.E., was present along with applicant Ron Turowetz and Attorney John Jacobi.~ Correspondence dated March 7, 2003 was received from JNEI. Mr. Aguiar informed the Board that a cost savings list is being compiled to address mitigation.~ He stated that the applicant wants to donate the subdivision’s open space to the Town rather than to a homeowner's association. Mr. McCarthy then informed the Board that if the open space is deeded to a homeowners' association it might be difficult to get State approval for the conservation restriction that would be needed and that perhaps the plan layout would have to change.~ Mr. Andrade and Mr. Canto agreed that they preferred the open space be deeded to a homeowners' association.~ Realtor Carol Sullivan spoke and
stated that she believed homeowner's preferred to have control of their property.~ Abutter Rich Amirault spoke and stated that he likes the cluster plan as it is now with the lots off Leonard Street.~ After discussion, Board members agreed that Attorney Jacobi would further research the conservation restriction matter for the applicant.~ Attorney Jacobi informed the Board that the request for a 28th lot on the plan was withdrawn.~ After discussion with Richard Amirault, Mr. Turowetz agreed that a buffer will be shown on the plan along Mr. Amirault's property line.~ After discussion, the public hearing was continued to April 10, 2003, 8 p.m.
Mr. Turowetz then requested that the Board release Lot 31 in Finch Farm I subdivision.~ After discussion of a disagreement between Roger Stolte and Mr. Turowetz regarding the condition of the roadway, it was agreed that John Schmid would contact Mr. Stolte to confirm what it would cost to complete the road if necessary.~ After discussion, a motion was made to release lot 31 subject to the Board's reconsideration if there is a problem with the Certificate of Action being fulfilled; motion seconded; motion passed four in favor with Carl Carlson abstaining.~~
9:20 p.m. - Dana Myers, 251 Prospect Hill Street, appeared before the Board to discuss a possible zoning change on Carver Street from Business to Residential A.~ Mr. Myers told the Board that he wants to rezone approximately 10.86 acres that he owns so that house lots would be available to his family in the future.~ After discussion, Board members agreed that they needed more information about the potential for any business development before agreeing to support the zoning change to residential.~ They advised Mr. Myers to have a plan drawn up that would show the extent of the wetlands in the business area and to give the Board an idea of how many subdivisions could be created if the area were zoned residential.
~
9:40 p.m. Doug Currie, Broadway, and Manuel Souza, 36 Macomber Street, Berkley, appeared before the Board to discuss a modification to the Currie Glass site plan, which was approved but not endorsed.~ Correspondence on the matter, dated March 11, 2003, was received from JNEI. Mr. Souza intends to purchase the property and construct a produce/garden center.~ Board members, John Schmid and Mr. Souza reviewed a copy of the approved site plan and discussed Mr. Souza's proposed plans.~ After discussion, Mr. Schmid informed the Board that he felt the proposed modifications were more than minor and that a site plan is needed for the new use.~ He noted that the driveway location and parking lot layout changed and that more traffic would be generated. After further discussion, Board members agreed that if the original footprint as
indicated on the approved site plan did not change, Mr. Souza could proceed with his business and return to the Board with a modification request if he decided he needed to make changes to the site.
10:00 p.m.~ David Hutchinson, Jennings Drive, and William Ferrier, Broadway, appeared before the Board to discuss a zoning change of the Residential D area on Broadway to Business zoning.~ Mr. Hutchinson and Mr. Ferrier submitted a citizen's petition to the Selectmen and the rezoning request will be on the Town Meeting warrant.~ Board members and Mr. McCarthy discussed the rezoning. After discussion, Board members agreed that it might be better to expand the proposed district lines rather than using the district lines of the Residential D district. After discussion, it was agreed that Mr. McCarthy will work on another alternative to the proposed business district for the Board’s consideration. A public hearing on the rezoning was scheduled for April 10, 2003.
10:32 p.m. Dan Aguiar, P.E., Sitec Engineering, appeared before the Board with a copy of the Lincoln Woods approved subdivision plan and a potential cluster subdivision plan for Lincoln Woods.~ He noted that the developer would be agreeable to doing the cluster plan if the Board preferred it over the conventional plan.~ After discussion, Board members agreed that they were satisfied with the original conventional plan and saw no reason to change it at this point.
10:42 p.m. Town Planner Update - Board members and Mr. McCarthy discussed supporting a rezoning on Pine Street from Industrial to business in order to allow an Adult Retirement Community (ARC) there.~ Mr. Canto stated that he did not like to rezone an area for one individual only.~ Mr. Carlson felt that rezoning of the entire Pine Street would not pass Town Meeting so only the requested 28 acres should be rezoned at this time.~ After discussion Board members agreed that the proposed ARC by-law should include industrial, business and all residential zones as areas allowing an ARC.~ After discussion, a motion was made to add Industrial Area to the proposed areas in the ARC by-law; motion seconded; motion passed by unanimous vote.~~
11:00 p.m.~ A motion was made to waive reading of the minutes of February 27, 2003 and to approve as submitted; motion seconded;~motion passed by unanimous vote. As there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 11:05 p.m.
| |